Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan John


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Dan John

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:ATHLETE, and WP:CONFLICT. This article mostly gives reference to sources created by the subject. Other references are made to the same small group of individuals with whom the subject collaborates on projects described in the article. While such a specialized community may be notable, in this case the subject does not seem to have sufficiently wide notability to be included in Wikipedia. It appears that this is a type of boutique article designed to promote the subject's notability and personal projects. Indeed, it appears that the article was created by one of the people (Draper) referenced as a source. An additional note to my comments above concerns the significance of the achievements listed in the article. While there is no reason to doubt the veracity of the subject's record, these achievements appear to be relatively minor in nature, known to only a small group of individuals. There are certainly thousands of individuals who have made similar accomplishments in this and other fields, but that fact does not mean these individuals should be included in Wikipedia. Such individuals are far too numerous and their accomplishments far too ordinary to achieve the level of notability envisioned by the nature of Wikipedia. Indeed, if a such individuals were included in Wikipedia, then it would become little more than a database listing the rather mundane biographies of the majority of people alive today. How does one conclude that a certain achievement is minor? A simple search of the Internet reveals if an achievement is of such limited significance at to exclude its designation as being notable. For example, if I produce a podcast that is the 70th most popular podcast in the technology category on iTunes, I would argue that most people would regard me as not being sufficiently notable to be included in Wikipedia. The subject of this article does not even seem to reach the level of notability I described in my example. Rotmo (talk) 08:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC) — Rotmo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - As the co-author of a book, and some DVDs, I could find no coverage in reliable sources about these works that would indicate that this person could be established as notable for creating well known works. This leaves his activities in athletics.  Looking at WP:ATHLETE, he fails to meet any of the criteria for a coach.  As an athlete, he competes at the Masters events.  I can find no indication that he has won a gold medal at the World Masters Athletics Championships as required by the notability guidelines for athletes.  This listing shows he was ranked 4th in discus for his age group, so good for him.  But that falls short of what is needed to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  -- Lear's Fool 14:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - I nominated this article for deletion. I agree with the above comment from Whpq. The research Whpq establishes that there is no verifiable source to establish the subject's notability.Rotmo (talk) 05:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.